In person For the v Mr D Dyal — 2017

The tribunal found that the claimant, a lead concept artist, saw a printed document at the respondent’s printer containing another employee’s salary and visa-related material. It accepted that he discussed the salary with three colleagues internally, but noted that the document had been left in a public area, was not marked confidential, and that other employees had also seen it. The respondent dismissed him for gross misconduct under its confidentiality policy and contractual confidentiality clauses.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent’s conduct reason was established, but its belief and response were not reasonable in the circumstances. It found the respondent had not properly tested whether the material was confidential within the contractual wording, had relied on clauses that were not clearly apt to this internal disclosure, and had treated a workplace discussion of salary as gross misconduct. It also found the respondent failed to take account of the fact that other staff saw the document and that one more senior employee who became involved in the matter was not dismissed.

The tribunal placed weight on procedural defects as well. The same manager investigated and conducted the disciplinary hearing, contrary to the respondent’s own procedure and the ACAS Code, and the claimant was not given the disciplinary policy, his contract, or the investigatory material before the hearing. The appeal did not cure those defects. The tribunal therefore held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses and that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant had not committed gross misconduct and that the respondent was therefore not entitled to summarily dismiss him without notice. It found that the internal discussion of the salary did not amount to conduct serious enough to go to the root of the contract and was, at most, misconduct. The respondent was held to have breached the contract by failing to pay notice, and the claimant’s loss was left to be determined at a later remedy hearing.